DanielChem_CHI said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
newstart_MO said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsnewstart_MO said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.